PARLIAMENT MUSI THINK AGAIN
Page 32
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Says John Barber
Director, Victory Transport Ltd.
Let B.R.S. Run Regular Trunk Services and, if Necessary, the Parcels Network: Private Hauliers Would Still Have Wide Scope
In "The Commercial Motor" on April 15, Janus
attempted to belittle the reasons for my recent resignation as a vice-chairmam of the Road Haulage Association. He somewhat facetiously referred to President Eisenhower's recent appointment of Mr. Harold Stassen as a kind of Minister for Disarmament and went on ' to suggest, equally facetiously, that perhaps the R.H.A. could create some such post for me.
Nothing would please me more than to be able to play
the role of a Minister of Disarmament, assuming that by that is meant the removal of the animosities which have bedevilled the relations between the various sections of the transport industry for the past 30 years, and above all, the achievement of political peace in transport. These are my reasons : TWENTY years ago the quarrel was mainly between the railways andthe hauliers. In the 10 years after the passing of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, marked progress was made in bringing order and cohesion into the road transport industry, all of whose 60,000 members h a d become licensed operators. During that period, relations between the leaders of the railways and the road haulage industry gradually improved, and in the war years both parties were working closely together on the Road-Rail Central Conference.
In May, 1945, representatives of road and rail, with the full support of the then Minister of Transport, Lord Leathers, began consultations with the object of finding a solution of the road-rail problem satisfactory to themselves, and framed to make it generally acceptable both to Parliament and the trading community. These proposals were subsequently endorsed by the main-line railways and the R.H.A., and in July, 1946, were submitted to Mr. Alfred Barnes, who was then Minister.
Unfortunately, all the time, effort and constructive thinking which had been put into drawing up the proposals failed to influence the Labour Government, which by this time were in office with a powerful Parliamentary majority. The memorandum was ignored, and a year later the Transport Act, 1947, started the process of bringing the railways and mediumand long-distance road haulage under State ownership.
Right Then—Right Now In the year preceding the passing of this Act, the R.H.A. and the railway companies had put up a tremendous fight to save their industries from nationalization, and to convince the public that the country could have a more efficient and economical service under private ownership than would be the case under the State. Nothing that has happened since has made me think that our views at that time were wrong.
Those of us who took an active part in the campaign against nationalization were convinced that if we lost the fight it would be extremely difficult for any future government to put back the clock with any real hope that transport under private ownershhip would be able to resume where it had left off. It seemed improbable that, any future government, whatever the party iii power, would agree to the railways being passed back to private ownership.
In the case of road transport, i,t seemed that any future denationalization, to be successful, would have to take place within the next two or three years. After such a lapse of_ time it would become increasingly improbable that ex-operators, particularly the larger ones, would be willing to re-enter the industry. Those B6 who had been operating the larger businesses had generally received fairly substantial sums in compensa-. tion, and would either have considered the time appropriate for their retirement from active business or, if they were younger and still energetic, would have invested their money and their ability in some other kind of business.
In October, 1951, a Conservative Government took office, pledged; among other things, to restore a measure of freedom to road transport. Traders arid industrialists concerned with the movement of goods had been far from happy in finding that much, if not all, of their transport requirements could. be supplied only by the British Transport Commission. Far too often there had been no competition whatsoever, either in service or in rates, consequently they welcomed. the Government's intention of restoring-Some competition in the industry.
Free-enterprise operators who had survived nationalization, but had been forced to confine their activities within the 25-mile radius and to such other activities as 'may have been authorized by permits granted by the B.T.C., longed for the restoration of their full rights to operate in accordance with the A or B licences which they possessed--a restoration of rights which had been taken away from them by the 1947 Act with no compensation whatever.
Ever since the invention of the internal-combustion engine, road transport has grown in its competitive power with the railways. From the beginning of mechanical transport, this problem has concerned not only those actively engaged in it, but also Parliament.
.Since 1830, when the first Railways Act was passed, governments have legislated to ensure that the railways were operated in the best interests of the nation. In the 19th century the problem was how to protect the public against the dangers of a railway monopoly. With the coming of the 20th century the problem changed to one of how best to protect the railways—and it was necessary to do so because of their strategic importance—from the relentless competition of the ever-increasing number of hauliers.
Benefits of Competition No one could deny that before nationalization, trade and industry had reaped great benefits from the intensive competition between road and rail, and any legislation which Would restore this competition was bound to meet with the approval of the trading community.
Many students of the transport problem had hoped that the Conservative Government, which took office in 1951, would provide a solution of the transport problem acceptable to traders, to those engaged in the transport industry, to the general public and, therefore, to all parties in Parliament. It was important for Parliament to decide once and for all whether the industry was to be publicly or privately owned, or partly one and partly the other. In view of the near equality of support which the Conservative and Labour parties had in the country, it was of paramount importance that every attempt be made within Parliament to reach agreement, it possible, on the question of ownership.
After another period of stormy debates in the House of Commons, the Conservative Government forced through Parliament by a narrow majority the 1953 Act. While retaining the railways under State ownership, this Act compelled the Commission, in effect. to dispose of 90 per cent. of the vehicles then operating under the Road Haulage Executive. Another important provision of the Act relieved the railways of their statutory obligations to maintain standard charges for the carriage of freight. There were to be only maximum charges, and below these the railways were to be entirely free to negotiate with any trader on a normal commercial basis.
There could be no doubt that the primary object was to benefit trade and industry by providing the maximum amount of competition between road and rail; but the Act failed miserably in offering any hope of a permanent solution of the transport problem.
It has been bitterly and consistently opposed by the Labour Party, and resented by the Commission. Despite its promise of fierce'competition between road and rail, it has caused considerable concern to traders, who see the possibility of losing the advantage of a nation-wide system of trunk services under responsible and experienced management.
It has left many hauliers seriously concerned about the future of their own industry, because they have enough knowledge of the transport problem to feel certain that it will not be many years before some succeeding government, whatever its label, will introduce further legislation to amend the defects of this Act.
Disposal has now been proceeding for nearly 18 .months. About 15,000 vehicles have been sold and almost all of these in small units. 'Something like two-thirds of them have gone to existing operators. In few cases have the larger units attracted much interest, and it is doubtful whether any large unit mainly concerned with the operation of trunk services has found a buyer.
No Surprise It seems extraordinary that -this failure to sell the larget units has surprised anybody with a real knowledge of the industry and who has any idea of the responsibilities involved, both financial and otherwise. It was obvious that buyers of the larger units would need three essential qualifications. First, they would have to be very experienced; secondly, they would require sufficient capital, which would probably mean anything upwards of £100,000; finally, they would need tremendous courage to risk so much in an industry whose political future must still be regarded as uncertain.
Next week we shall have another General Election, and whilst it seems probable that the Conservatives will again have a majority, it is by no means certain. If the Labour Party do, by any chance, win the election, they have made it clear that the provisions of the 1953 Act for the disposal of B.R.S. vehicles will cease. It seems equally certain that once again restrictions would be imposed on the operation of all Aand B-licensed vehicles outside the control of the B.T.C.
Big Units Unpopular
If the Conservatives win the election, there may for a while be increased interest in B.R.S. vehicles. It would still appear decidedly improbable, that the majority of the larger units will be sold, unless the Disposal Board are willing to recommend that tenders be accepted provided that they are high enough to cover the bare assets, regardless of trading rights and special A licences. The Board cannot allow this to happen.
It would seem almost certain that whichever party is returned to power, the 1953 Act will be amended. There will then be another opportunity for Parliament to try to agree a constitution for the industry. which will be generally acceptable to all concerned, including, of course, the Labour Party. Such a constitution should leave the publicly, owned and the privately owned sections of the ihdustry free to contribute of their best in the interests of the country as a whole, and in the knowledge that if they accept their opportunities with a proper sense Of responsibility, their future will be secure.
If there is to be such amending legislation, it is most fervently hoped that the Government will take heed of the advice of those of us who are closely concerned with the future of the transport industry. Because it is our livelihood, we yearn for the day when the industry will no longer be the plaything of politicians. Hauliers themselves must take the initiative in preparing a plan that will safeguard their future.
Is road transport, in principle, so very different from air transport? In the latter case, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are together responsible for the operation of the more important scheduled services, whilst the charter companies operate successfully on all the other services for which there is a public need. The ownership and operation of civil air services are no longer matters of dispute between the political parties, and the general public seem content to have a blend of public and private ownership.
A Simple Solution
So far as the future of road transport is concerned, surely the solution is a comparatively simple one. Let B.R.S. remain responsible for the operation of a nationwide system of regular trunk services. If there are no satisfactory buyers for the parcels services, which also involve a large and complicated organization, let B.R.S. retain them.
Private operators would be left with many ways in which they could operate to the advantage of themselves and the country. If such a blend of public and private ownership is acceptable in civil air transport, there is no logical reason why it should not be equally applicable to road transport.